marktigger wrote:... and does it need to have regular crews? you could use RNR that could be mobilised as needed. Most missile AD systems use simulators for training easy enough to install in reserve centers. With the systems on the ships you need a technician to maintain it. And periodically do T's & A's so manpower isn't a huge issue

If CEC for CAMM is there, working well, distributing the canistered CAMM launchers on RFA vessels in war time with Reserves as a maintenance crew will make sense, I agree. (although I am not sure RN/RFA will follow this way... ref. no CEC for T45 yet..)

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Is this really supported now? If CAMM can be handled via Link16 or anything "already existing networks", it is a great sales point. I read somewhere that T26 gas 2 up/down link antennas for CAMM. In other words, T26 is not using its link16 system to guide CAMM. As my comment here is totally just a speculation, do anybody know about the truth?

Yep CAMM works like that out the box. There is no dedicated control radar, instead it accepts data from a network of distributed systems. It doesn't use link 16, it's uses a new system called the common data link which requires a small black box to be fitted to vehicle's, it can be seen on the land ceptor images clearly.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:CEC, and "distributed lethality concept" based on it, if applicable to CAMM, will be very interesting aspects. Virtually, CV's AAW can be done by 1 CMS on CVF or T45, and 2 SSS/AO near (a few km) and 4 OPV/MHCs far (~15km), all equipped with CAMM canisters. This will dramatically reduce the need for AAW defense of CVTF.

It is however distinctly different to CEC.

CEC aims to fuse raw data from many sources into one large battle space picture.

The common data link more or less just sends coordinates to the missile from distributed systems. It's a cheaper way of reaching a similar effect.

It does reduce the need for CAMM on the carrier's, or a 'guard ship''. If it was ever felt the layered defence we have needs another layer it would be feasible to place CAMM and a black box on a nearby auxiliary and have that controlled by the carrier or crowsnest or other distributed systems.

That is the main benifit to CAMM, it works around the comon data link, and active radar guidance, removing the need for a dedicated fire control radar and instead relying on distributed systems for its data.

shark bait wrote:It doesn't use link 16, it's uses a new system called the common data link which requires a small black box to be fitted to vehicle's, it can be seen on the land ceptor images clearly.

Thanks.

The common data link more or less just sends coordinates to the missile from distributed systems. It's a cheaper way of reaching a similar effect. It does reduce the need for CAMM on the carrier's, or a 'guard ship''. If it was ever felt the layered defence we have needs another layer it would be feasible to place CAMM and a black box on a nearby auxiliary and have that controlled by the carrier or crowsnest or other distributed systems. That is the main benifit to CAMM, it works around the comon data link, and active radar guidance, removing the need for a dedicated fire control radar and instead relying on distributed systems for its data.

Then, marktigger-san's suggestion is becoming really attractive. Of course we need some resource to enable it. For ~6 systems of "24 CAMM (=2 launchers) and a common data link box", how many cost will be needed?

Yes. Nothing special about the missile itself. Not agile (but high-speed it is), not large warhead, not "very" long range, small and (presumably) cheap(er) with ARH seeker. Very flexible, can do salvo for agile targets, and do 1-by-1 for simple targets. I like it.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Nothing special about the missile itself. Not agile (but high-speed it is)

The base (A2A) missile is known for its agility, off-bore launch properties and extending to near BVR- it was developed when the BVR alternatives were subject to limited agility in their closing in phases, due to the propellent already having burnt out- not the case with Meteor,anymore, but that is moving the goal post as it is the next-gen development (for BVR)

CAMM has the ER in the back pocket (not sure if it has been funded; however, the similar AMRAAM development will double the ranges in its SAM applications, like NASAMS).

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The base (A2A) missile is known for its agility, off-bore launch properties and extending to near BVR- it was developed when the BVR alternatives were subject to limited agility in their closing in phases, due to the propellent already having burnt out- not the case with Meteor,anymore, but that is moving the goal post as it is the next-gen development (for BVR)

Yes, this was one point I wanted to be cleared. - AIM9X is more "agile" than ASRAAM, as stated elsewhere. With its large fin, very understandable- ASTER and ESSM also has a long fin, designed to be as agile as 60G and 50G respectively. (The same for CAMM-ER). - but ASRAAM states, "Unrivalled sustained aerodynamic manoeuvrability" (ref. MBDA site).May be it is not G. What is the "sustained aerodynamic manoeuvrability", and at what respect ASRAAM/CAMM is agile?

One possibility is, the rocket motor sustains very long, so TVC is usable to the end.Another possibility is, it is very agile when launched, before the rocket motor burns out. But after that, what will happen? A high velocity missile (with no rocket IR signal) itself is good, but,... What is maneuverability? What is agile?

CAMM ER is a brainchild of MBDA's Italy branch, which really, really, really would like to work on it to keep workers busy, as the italian branch is not otherwise quite as active as the french and UK branches when it comes to developing and building new weapons (it produces a lot of key parts, including CAMM's seeker in Fusaro). There is now funding for the development of MARTE ER thanks to the order from the UAE, but CAMM ER is still struggling to take off. The italian army and air force are interested in CAMM ER as a replacement for their Skyshield and Spada SAM batteries, and the Navy thought about putting CAMM ER on ships starting with the new PPA as, effectively, an Aster 15 replacement, but there was no money for it in the latest defence budget. Maybe next year will bring better news, but it is far from certain.

You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Yes, this was one point I wanted to be cleared. - AIM9X is more "agile" than ASRAAM, as stated elsewhere. With its large fin, very understandable- ASTER and ESSM also has a long fin, designed to be as agile as 60G and 50G respectively. (The same for CAMM-ER). - but ASRAAM states, "Unrivalled sustained aerodynamic manoeuvrability" (ref. MBDA site).May be it is not G. What is the "sustained aerodynamic manoeuvrability", and at what respect ASRAAM/CAMM is agile?

ASRAAM is considerably faster and longer ranged, but i really don't think it'll ever turn as well as IRIS-T and Sidewinder 9X for obvious reasons. They don't just have big control surface, they also have vectored thrust.

You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Navy support vessel RFA Lyme Bay has begun her mission as ‘mother ship’ to British and allied minehunters in the Gulf with a two-week Anglo-American workout.

The Falmouth-based vessel has just arrived in the Middle East to take over from her sister Cardigan Bay, which spent a good three years providing fuel, food, spare parts and ammunition to mine warfare forces operating out of Bahrain.

She does so via a process known as ‘rafting up’ – berthing alongside minehunters in the mid-ocean with giant fenders to prevent the vessels damaging each other.

To put her to the test as the afloat forward support base (the official term for ‘mother ship’) – and to give the minehunters a bit of a workout too – all four of the Royal Navy’s force in Bahrain, HMS Penzance, Middleton, Chiddingfold and Bangor, plus two US Navy Avenger-class vessels, USS Sentry and Gladiator, put to sea for a fortnight.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:All three accounted for- anti-choking patrol support- anti-terrorist blockade/ non-compliant boardings support-- on that note, a cb90 in the well dock would be nice to have?- one in the dock

So, a single Albion (class vessel) available "back at base"

Worth noting Mounts Bay should still have around 150-200 RM from 45 Commando aboard.

Presumably Bulwark will deploy with Ocean to the Med this Autumn, perhaps joined by Mounts Bay (no Bay-class vessels took part in last year's Cougar deployment, so perhaps not).

Navy helps destroy last of Gaddafi's chemical weapon stockpile to keep it from Islamic State

A Royal Navy ship has helped destroy the last of Col Muammar Gaddafi’s chemical weapon programme to ensure it does not fall into the hands of Islamic State terrorists.

RFA Mounts Bay escorted a ship load of chemical weapon ingredients through the Mediterranean from Libya, for destruction in Germany.

The 500 tonnes of chemicals on board a Danish transport vessel represented the last of the former dictator’s stockpile.The voyage was protected by a detachment of Royal Marines and marked the culmination of a top secret, UN-backed mission to ensure the huge stockpile of mustard gas ingredients amassed by Col Gaddafi did not fall into the hands of Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (Isil).

RFA Mounts Bay has assisted in the removal of the last batch of known materials which could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons from Libya.

The UK provided RFA Mounts Bay to support the Danish-led maritime operation, escorting a Danish transport ship through the Mediterranean as it carried the chemicals, the Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary have announced.

Libya’s chemical weapons stockpile was destroyed under international supervision in 2014. However, a quantity of chemicals which could be made into chemical weapons remained in the country.

Earlier this year, the Libyan Government of National Accord requested support from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the international community in removing the remaining chemicals from Libya and destroying them safely in a third country.

Following the Libyan request, the UK took up a major role alongside international partners as part of a wider programme of UK support to the OPCW in ensuring these chemicals are safely destroyed and can’t be obtained by terrorists.